Thursday, 30 May 2024

Polarizing filters have both advantages and disadvantages, which are summarized below:

 Polarizing filters have both advantages and disadvantages, which are summarized below:

Pros:
  1. Reduces glare: Eliminates unwanted reflections from surfaces like water, glass, and metal.
  2. Enhances colors: Increases color saturation and contrast, making images more vibrant.
  3. Improves sky contrast: Darkens the sky and makes clouds stand out, creating a more dramatic effect.
  4. Reduces haze: Minimizes atmospheric haze, making distant objects appear sharper.
  5. Protects the lens: Acts as a shield against scratches, dust, and other damage.
  6. Improves image clarity: Reduces unwanted light scattering, resulting in a sharper image.
Cons:
  1. Reduces light transmission: Absorbs some light, potentially affecting exposure settings.
  2. Can create uneven skies: If not adjusted properly, can lead to an unnatural gradient in the sky.
  3. May affect autofocus: In some cases, the filter can interfere with autofocus accuracy.
  4. Can be expensive: High-quality polarizing filters can be costly.
  5. May cause vignetting: Can produce a darkening effect in the corners of the image, especially with wide-angle lenses.
  6. Requires adjustment: Needs to be rotated to achieve the desired effect, which can be time-consuming.
  7. Not suitable for all scenes: May not be effective or desirable in certain situations, such as indoor photography or low-light conditions.
It's important to weigh these pros and cons and consider the specific shooting situation before deciding to use a polarizing filter.

Remember to Compose VIEW!

June 21 2021 Jan 22nd 2020 Patient zero in Ontario for Canada On January 23, the first presumptive case in Canada was admitted to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto and placed into a negative pressure chamber.[1][2]

        The patient, a male in his 50s who travelled between Wuhan and Guangzhou before returning to Toronto on January 22, contacted emergency services following rapid onset symptoms.[3] The presumption of infection in the patient was made after a rapid test was done at Public Health Ontario's Toronto laboratory, and was announced on January 25.[1][2]

The Dirty Little Secret AA Does Not Want You To Know About Quitting Drin...

volume_up Here's a more critical look at AA's success rates compared to other programs, along with cost considerations: Success Rates: Defining "success" in addiction recovery is challenging, but abstinence rates are a common metric. AA's success rates are often cited at around 5-10%, though their own surveys suggest a 22% rate for sobriety lasting 20+ years. [Source: HealthLine - "AA and NA Are Popular, but Are They Actually Effective?"(https://americanaddictioncenters.org/rehab-guide/12-step/whats-the-success-rate-of-aa)] However, critics argue these numbers are self-reported and lack strong scientific backing. In contrast, some studies show medication-assisted treatment (MAT) programs can achieve abstinence rates of 30-50%. [Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse - "Principles of Medication-Assisted Treatment"(https://www.samhsa.gov/medications-substance-use-disorders/statutes-regulations-guidelines)] Therapy approaches like CBT can also boast success rates in the 30-40% range for abstinence or reduced drinking. [Source: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism - "Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol Use Disorder"(https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/)] Cost: AA is free to attend, making it a highly accessible resource. Traditional rehab programs and therapy can be expensive, often requiring insurance coverage. Medication-assisted treatment can also incur costs for medications and doctor visits. Here's a table summarizing the key points: Feature AA MAT Therapy (CBT) Success Rate (Abstinence) 5-10% (estimates vary) 30-50% 30-40% Cost Free Varies (insurance, medication) Varies (insurance, therapist) Approach Spiritual, support groups Medication-assisted reduction of cravings Addressing underlying thought patterns drive_spreadsheet Export to Sheets Remember: The best approach to treatment is often a combination of these methods, tailored to the individual's needs. AA can still be a valuable source of support, even if it's not the sole treatment method. Additional Resources: The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/) The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (https://www.samhsa.gov/) share more_vert folllow up with comparsion to harm reduction programs, in Toronto, and Canada, with quations in a mark twain style edit Show drafts volume_up Absolutely! Now, let's get down to brass tacks and compare AA to those newfangled harm reduction programs, all the rage these days. Here in Toronto, and up in the Great White North more generally, these programs are causing quite a stir. AA vs. Harm Reduction: A Tale of Two Approaches AA, bless its heart, is like that old horse and buggy – reliable, familiar, and free. But is it the fastest steed in the recovery stable? Now, harm reduction programs, those are more like shiny new automobiles. They focus on pragmatism, you see, like Mark Twain himself tinkering with his steamboat. Here's the rub, as Twain would say: Goals: AA sets its sights firmly on total abstinence, that holy grail of sobriety. Harm reduction programs, on the other hand, are more about "taking it one day at a time," like Twain tackling a hefty manuscript. They aim to lessen the risks associated with substance use, aiming for a smoother ride, not necessarily total dismount. Methods: AA relies heavily on the power of community and that "higher power" business, which some folks find mighty comforting, while others might scoff. Harm reduction programs, like a good toolbox, offer a variety of tools – needle exchange, safer consumption sites, naloxone training – all aimed at keeping folks safe and healthy. The Cost of the Ride Now, the sticker price! AA, like a friendly neighbor lending a hand, is entirely free. Harm reduction programs, well, they require some investment, but the returns can be mighty high. Success Stories? Hold Your Horses! Measuring success in this realm is a tricky business, friend. AA throws around numbers like 5-10% for long-term sobriety, but some folks call shenanigans. Harm reduction programs are newer on the scene, and their data is still being gathered, but the initial reports are promising in terms of reducing harm and even nudging folks towards treatment. The Twainian Takeaway There's no one-size-fits-all answer, just like there's no single perfect steamboat design. AA can be a powerful support system for some, while harm reduction programs offer a more practical approach for others. The best course of action might be a "hodgepodge" (Twain would approve!), a combination of these approaches, tailored to the individual's needs. Remember: Both AA and harm reduction programs are trying to steer folks away from the dark waters of addiction. It's about finding the right vessel for a safe and healthy journey towards recovery.

Monday, 27 May 2024

 The article claims that Christians were denied access to the Bible for 1,000  years, but this is misleading. Here's a more nuanced breakdown:

  • Early Christianity (1st-4th centuries): There wasn't a single, universally accepted Bible at this point. Different Christian communities used various texts and Gospels.
  • Council of Nicaea (325 CE): This council standardized Christian practices and established a foundation for the New Testament.
  • Limited Bible Access (4th-15th centuries): The Church discouraged laypeople from reading the Bible on their own and prohibited translations into vernacular languages. They likely did this to control interpretations and maintain their authority.
  • Translation Movements (14th-16th centuries): Figures like John Wycliffe and William Tyndale challenged the restrictions and translated the Bible into English, facing persecution for doing so.
  • Printing Press (15th century onwards): This invention made Bibles more widely available, though the Church still held influence over distribution.

Key Points:

  • Christians weren't completely denied access to the Bible, but access was restricted for centuries.
  • The Church's motives for limiting access are complex and debated (control, power, preserving interpretations).
  • The situation gradually changed with translation movements and the printing press.

Inaccuracy:

  • The claim of 1,000 years of denial is an exaggeration. Restrictions eased over time.

A MasterClass In Critical Thinking When a Student Asks About J.K. Rowlin...

Critical Thinking 2024